DOCSLIB.ORG

Aboriginal Title and Rights: Foundational Principles and Recent Developments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ABORIGINAL TITLE AND RIGHTS: FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Maria Morellato,Q.C. Mandell Pinder 2009 Constitutional & Human Rights Conference The McLachlin Court’s First Decade: Reflections on the Past and Projections for the Future June 19, 2009 – Ottawa, Ontario From Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2008 eds. The Honourable Mr. Justice Todd L. Archibald, and Mr. Justice Randall Scott Echlin Reprinted by permission of Carswell, a division of Thomson Reuters Canada Limited TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Source and Substance of Aboriginal Title ................................................................... 1 A. The Nature and Scope of Aboriginal Title as Defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw .......................................................................................... 4 B. The Unique Nature of Aboriginal Title and Its Inherent Limits ............................. 5 C. The Interpretation of Section 35 and its Purpose .................................................... 6 D. The Infringement and Justification Analysis Pursuant to Section 35 ..................... 8 (i) Is there a valid Legislative Objective? ........................................................... 9 (ii) Has the Honour of the Crown Been Upheld in Light of its Fiduciary Duty? 9 E. The Implications of R. v. Marshall and R. v Bernard ........................................... 11 F. The Implications of Tsilhqot’in v. British Columbia ........................................... 12 III. Distinguishing Aboriginal Title and Practice-Based Rights ............................................. 18 A. The Distinct Legal Tests for Proving Different Kinds of Aboriginal Rights ....... 20 B. The Aboriginal Right to Harvest Timber .............................................................. 21 IV. The Crown‟s Duty to Consult and Accommodate Aboriginal and Treaty Rights ............ 22 A. The Scope and Content of the Duty to Consult and Accommodate ..................... 25 B. Satisfying the Duty to Consult and Accommodate ............................................... 26 C. Haida Applied: Court-Supervised Consultation and Accommodation Negotiations .......................................................................................................... 28 D. The Duty to Consult and Accommodate in the Treaty Context............................ 34 E. The Duty to Consult and Accommodate in Respect of Privately-Held Lands ..... 40 F. Jurisdictional Issues and the Duty to Consult and Accommodate ........................ 42 V. Aboriginal Rights and Section 15 of the Charter ............................................................. 43 VI. Consulting and Accommodating Through the Inherent Right to Self-Governance ......... 45 A. Aboriginal Governance Rights As Recognized in Canadian Law ........................ 46 B. Accommodating Aboriginal Governance Rights .................................................. 52 VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 53 ABORIGINAL TITLE AND RIGHTS I. Introduction Canadian jurisprudence on Aboriginal title and rights, while still in its formative stages, has evolved rapidly in recent years, adding much needed shape and substance to legal discourse in this area. Nonetheless, Aboriginal law is complex and remains largely unknown for many practitioners. Furthermore, its ever changing character presents significant challenges for both solicitors and litigators specializing in the area. Accordingly, this paper provides an analytical review of leading Supreme Court of Canada and other cases with a view to highlighting essential first principles, recent developments and their implications. In doing so, it will become apparent that most areas of practice will be impacted by the legal principles articulated below. This paper will begin with a review of the scope and substance of Aboriginal title and rights, addressing both the source and unique nature of these rights. The paper then addresses the legal obligations imposed on the Crown by our common law in relation to the recognition and affirmation of these rights in our constitution. The implications of these rights on land and resource development will also be addressed, both with regard to proven and unproven Aboriginal rights as well as related jurisdictional issues. More specifically, the Crown‟s duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal rights will be reviewed in detail, in light of the prevailing case law. Finally, this paper will examine the status of Aboriginal governance rights and their place in Canada‟s constitutional framework. II. The Source and Substance of Aboriginal Title The Supreme Court of Canada‟s decision in Guerin v. The Queen was the first decision of the Court to clearly articulate the nature of Aboriginal title as “a unique interest in land” which embodies “a legal right to occupy and possess certain lands.”1 Previous jurisprudence described Aboriginal title as “a personal usufructuary right,” thereby generating considerable legal debate concerning whether Aboriginal title embodied merely the right to use the land for certain activity bases purposes (such as hunting or trapping) or whether it constituted an interest in the land itself.2 Guerin finally established that there was indeed a proprietary aspect to Aboriginal title, although Dickson J. (as he then was) cautioned against defining Aboriginal title by applying the “somewhat inappropriate terminology drawn from general property law.”3 Of significance, Dickson J.‟s analysis in Guerin found its genesis in Calder where the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the occupation of traditional lands by an Aboriginal society gave rise to an unique form of title in land which arose independent of a treaty, legislation or executive order. Mr. Justice Judson reasoned as follows: Although I think it is clear that Indian title in British Columbia cannot owe its origin to the Proclamation of 1763, the fact is that when the settlers came, the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their 1 Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 at p. 339 [“Guerin”]. 2 See for example Calder et al v. Attorney General of Canada (1973), 34 D.L.R. (3rd) 145 [“Calder”]; Smith v. The Queen, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554. 3 Guerin, supra at p. 383. - 2 - forefathers had done for centuries. This is what Indian title means and it does not help one in the solution of this problem to call it a “personal or usufructuary right.” What they are asserting in this action is that they had a right to continue to live on their lands as their forefathers had lived and this right has never been lawfully extinguished.4 Along a similar vein, Mr. Justice Hall reasoned that possession of tribal lands was in itself proof of “ownership”: In enumerating the indicia of ownership, the trial judge overlooked that possession is of itself proof of ownership. Prima facie, therefore, the Nishgas are the owners of the lands that have been in their possession from time immemorial...5 The analysis in Calder rested upon the prior possession of tribal territories by Aboriginal societies as the source of Aboriginal title. This focal point effectively foreshadowed the legal test for proving Aboriginal title, which was established almost 25 years later by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case wherein Chief Justice Lamer identified Aboriginal use and occupation of traditional tribal territory, prior to the assertion of British sovereignty, as a central and necessary criterion of proof.6 The nature of Aboriginal title was further clarified in Roberts v. Canada,7 where Madam Justice Wilson, speaking for a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, concluded that the law of Aboriginal title formed part of the federal common law. In doing so, she affirmed the unique character of Aboriginal title: In Calder v. A.G.B.C. this court recognized Aboriginal title as the legal right derived from the Indians‟ historic occupation and possession of their tribal lands. As Dickson J. (as he then was) pointed out in Guerin, Aboriginal title pre-dated colonization by the British and survived British claims of sovereignty. The Indians‟ right of occupation and possession continued as a “burden on the radical or final title of the sovereign: [cites omitted]...”8 (emphasis added) The significance of this passage is found not only in its affirmation of Aboriginal title as a right which survived the assertion of British Sovereignty but, as well, in its depiction of Aboriginal title as a co-existing burden on the underlying title of the Crown. 4 Calder, supra at p. 156. 5 Calder, supra at pp. 189-90. 6 Delgamuukw et al v. The Queen (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at para. 143 [“Delgamuukw SCC”]. 7 Roberts v. Canada (1989), 57 D.L.R. (4th) 197 [“Roberts”]. 8 Roberts, supra at p. 131. - 3 - In Paul v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.,9 the Supreme Court of Canada further reasoned that the Aboriginal title embodied more than the right to enjoy and occupy traditional lands: The inescapable conclusion from the court‟s analysis of Indian title up to this point is that the Indian interest in land is truly sui generis. It is more than the right to enjoyment and occupancy, although, as the Chief Justice pointed out in Guerin, it is difficult to describe what more in traditional property law terminology.10 (emphasis added) The
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights

    Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights

    M10_TELF6850_01_SE_C10.indd Page 185 22/04/14 7:24 PM user /206/PHC00138/9780132546850_PHC00138/PHC00138_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_CANADIAN_POLITIC ... Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights Key Points n The rules of the game have always been different for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. n Aboriginal peoples constituted self-governing communities in North America before the arrival of Europeans, and they entered into treaty arrangements with the Crown in many parts of Canada, although not everywhere (particularly British Columbia). n Treaty arrangements with Aboriginal peoples were frequently ignored, and at Confederation Aboriginal peoples were subjected to a form of internal colonialism. n In light of important court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act 1982. n But the governments of Canada have been reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with Aboriginal peoples, so it has fallen to the Supreme Court to define the scope and meaning of Aboriginal rights, including self-government. n The constitutional promises of 1982 are still not fulfilled, but it is clear that Aboriginal peoples constitute unique citizens in Canada. n While Aboriginal rights are now constitutionally protected, many Aboriginal communities are still mired in poverty. For many Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of the ­Constitution Act 1982, but Part II of the new constitution is potentially even more signifi- cant. Here we find, in one very brief section, the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights. Section 35 was an afterthought for Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers, and it reads more like a promissory note than a plan for a new order of government.
  • Individual Aboriginal Rights

    Individual Aboriginal Rights

    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 9 2004 Individual Aboriginal Rights John W. Ragsdale Jr. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation John W. Ragsdale Jr., Individual Aboriginal Rights, 9 MICH. J. RACE & L. 323 (2004). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol9/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL ABORIGINAL RIGHTS John W RagsdaleJr.* INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 323 I. THE DEVELOPING CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL ABORIGINAL R IGHTS ............................................................. 331 A. The Western Shoshone Experience Prior to the Indian Claims Commission Act ............................................ 331 B. The Indian Claims Commission Proceedings .................... 336 C. The Dann Litigation and the Establishment of Individual A boriginal R ights .................................................... 341 II. CONTOURS OF THE DOCTRINE ...............................................
  • Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act As a Means To

    Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act As a Means To

    Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act as a Means to Promote Economic Participation and Treaty Implementation by Myra J Tait A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF LAWS Faculty of Law University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2017 by Myra J Tait ii ABSTRACT Canadian courts, despite recognition in the Canadian Constitution, 1982 that treaties are to govern the Crown-Aboriginal relationship, continue to develop principles of interpretation that narrow Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the taxation provisions of the Indian Act. In Robertson, the Federal Court of Appeal, building on Mitchell v Peguis, articulated a “historic and purposive” analysis, by reliance on a distinctive culture test and an ascribed protection rationale, thereby abrogating the fundamental treaty relationship. As a means to fuller implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaties, taxation provisions must be interpreted in a treaty-compliant manner. The potential for economic participation through a proposed “urban reserve” on the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as part of a Treaty 1 settlement, is discussed as a case study, and compared with similar developments in New Zealand, under a Waitangi Tribunal settlement, as an example of treaty compliance in economic development. Key words: Indian Act s87; Economic development; Historic and purposive; Tax exemption; Numbered Treaties; Treaty interpretation; Treaty implementation; Urban reserves; Native Leasing Services, Kapyong; Waitangi Tribunal. iii Acknowledgements Ehara taku toa, he takitahi, he toa takitini—Success is not the work of one, but of many.
  • The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns

    The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns

    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons LLM Theses Theses and Dissertations 2014 The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Posluns, Michael Wilfred, "The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown" (2014). LLM Theses. 7. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/7 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LLM Theses by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Posluns A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAW GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO December 2013 © Michael Posluns, 2013 ABSTRACT This thesis is about two inter-related matters: first, the allocation of burdens of proof in litigation between First Nations and the Crown; and, secondly, the reaction or response of the Crown to the Court’s allocations of burdens, as evidenced in the subsequent cases. Since “burdens of proof” refers to matters of fact and evidence, I refer simply to “burdens”, emphasizing that, I mean all the burdens allocated by a Court and which the Court expects the parties to discharge in order for their case to succeed. My initial interest was in the response of the Crown to the allocation of burdens by the Court and related admonitions.
  • Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows

    Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows

    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 71 (2015) Article 5 Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Borrows, John. "Aboriginal Title and Private Property." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 71. (2015). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows* Q: What did Indigenous Peoples call this land before Europeans arrived? A: “OURS.”1 I. INTRODUCTION In the ground-breaking case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia2 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.3 It held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation possess constitutionally protected rights to certain lands in central British Columbia.4 In drawing this conclusion the Tsilhqot’in secured a declaration of “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land”.5 These are wide-ranging rights.
  • Some Thoughts on Aboriginal Title

    Some Thoughts on Aboriginal Title

    SOME THOUGHTS ON ABORIGINAL TITLE Brian Slattery* Introduction Justice Ivan Cleveland Rand, for whom this lecture is named, served as a judge in the Supreme Court of Canada for some sixteen years, between 1943 and 1959. During that period, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down only three reported decisions relating to the rights of aboriginal peoples.1 In two of these cases, Justice Rand delivered separate opinions.2 Some passages that appear there are worth pondering. In the St. Ann’s Island Shooting and Fishing Club case,3 decided in 1950, Justice Rand stated with respect to a provision of the Indian Act:4 The language of the statute embodies the accepted view that these aborigines are, in effect, wards of the state, whose care and welfare are a political trust of the highest obligation. For that reason, every such dealing with their privileges must bear the imprint of Governmental approval... Six years later, in the case of Francis v. The Queen,5 Justice Rand remarked with respect to a clause favouring Indians in the Jay Treaty of 1794: Appreciating fully the obligation of good faith toward these wards of the state [i.e. the Indians], there can be no doubt that the conditions constituting the raison d ’etre of the clause were and have been considered such as would in foreseeable time disappear.... Whether, then, the time of its expiration has been reached or not it is not here necessary to decide; it is sufficient to say that there is no legislation now in force implementing the stipulation.
  • LAND TITLES the Following Is General Information About Land Titles

    LAND TITLES the Following Is General Information About Land Titles

    LAND TITLES The following is general information about land titles. It does not replace a lawyer’s advice about a specific legal problem. Everyone’s situation is different, so you may need to get legal help about your matter. Is all the land in the province owned by someone Courts will enforce those rights and make sure that others, or is some of the land public land? including governments, respect them. The Province owns about 35% of the land in Nova Scotia, and the rest of the land (about 65%) is owned privately, or by the federal Where a person does not have title to a specific piece of land, and municipal governments. The majority of the publicly owned they may be denied the opportunity to exercise these rights. land is managed by the Department of Natural Resources. This land is often referred to as Crown lands. Having title to land means that the landowner must comply with the legal obligations of land ownership. These obligations will Can people buy Crown lands or other provincial vary depending on where that land is located. In Nova Scotia, the lands? main legal responsibilities of landowners include paying municipal The Province has been working to buy more land, and does not property taxes and following land use bylaws. If you don’t pay taxes sell a great deal of the land it owns because the percentage and follow applicable laws, the consequences can be severe – you of public land ownership in Nova Scotia is small compared to may need to pay a fine or you could lose title to your land.
  • Analysis of Written Submissions on the Report Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors

    Analysis of Written Submissions on the Report Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors

    Analysis of Written Submissions on the Report Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors ISBN: 0-478-07822-6 June 2004 Contents page Foreword 1 Executive Summary 2 Background 5 Analysis of submissions on the report “Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors” 5 Establishment of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group 5 The report, Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors 5 Consultation 5 This document 6 Content and style 6 1 Introduction 8 Key points made in submissions 8 1.1 Commend the work of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group 9 1.2 Compliment the Minister of Rural Affairs on this initiative 9 1.3 Labour Party’s outdoor recreation policy 10 1.4 Focus on ‘walking’ access in the terms of reference 10 1.5 The extent of access problems 11 1.6 Perceived bias in the report 11 2 The Characteristics of Access 13 Key points made in submissions 13 2.1 Heritage of freedom of access to the outdoors 13 2.2 Requesting permission – a traditional social convention 14 2.3 Changes in land use 15 2.4 Changes in land ownership 16 2.5 Urban and rural private land 16 3 Arrangements for Access in New Zealand 18 Key points made in submissions 18 3.1 Guidance given to government agencies 18 Resource Management Act 1991 18 New Zealand Walkways Act 1990 19 3.2 Guidance given to landholders 19 3.3 Guidance given to the public 20 3.4 Non-statutory guidance 20 3.5 Access arrangements on Maori land 21 4 Public Access Arrangements in Other Countries 23 Key points made in submissions 23 4.1 New Zealand as a recreation destination 23 i 4.2 Access arrangements
  • Environment Australia

    Environment Australia

    ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION INQUIRY INTO DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES IN REGIONAL AUSTRALIA BASED ON BIOPROSPECTING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND REGIONAL SERVICES February 2001 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SUMMARY TERMS OF REFERENCE 2: IMPEDIMENTS TO GROWTH OF NEW INDUSTRIES BASED ON BIOPROSPECTING Policy Background The Convention on Biological Diversity Our Living Heritage Australia’s National Biotechnology Strategy Regulating access to biological/genetic resources Environment Australia’s objectives Criteria of the proposed access and benefit sharing scheme Towards a nationally consistent approach to access and benefit sharing Harmonisation of arrangements at the Commonwealth level Harmonisation of Commonwealth, State and Territory approaches Improved access through the Australian Virtual Herbarium TERM OF REFERENCE 3: CAPACITY TO MAXMISE BENEFITS THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OTHER MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY KNOWLEDGE INDUSTRIES IN AUSTRALIA Benefits to Australia from access and benefit sharing arrangements Support for benefits to Australia from access to our biological resources Lack of adequate benefit sharing arrangements Examples of benefit sharing arrangements in Australia and their contribution to the development of high technology knowledge industries Monetary and non-monetary benefits Proposed benefit sharing requirements Potential size of the commercial benefits from bioprospecting Potential impact of bioprospecting on regional Australia Conclusions TERM OF REFERENCE 4: THE IMPACTS ON AND BENEFITS TO THE ENVIRONMENT Possible adverse impacts on the environment Environmental assessment, protocols and the precautionary principle Environmental assessment of bioprospecting under the EPBC Act 1999 Benefits to the environment Conclusions 2 APPENDICES 1. The Voumard Inquiry into Access to Biological Resources in Commonwealth Areas 2.
  • A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present

    A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present

    A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present The first nine chapters for this publication were prepared for the National Centre for First Nations Governance (NCFNG) by Professor Kent McNeil in March, 2007. Kent McNeil has taught at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto since 1987. He specializes in Indigenous rights, especially in Canada, Australia, and the United States. The Duty to Consult Aboriginal People was prepared by NCFNG research staff. NCFNG supports First Nations as they seek to implement effective, independent governance. The Centre delivers nation rebuilding services to First Nation communities across Canada. NCFNG is an independent service and research organization that is governed and staffed by experienced First Nation professionals. 4 Introduction For thousands of years, the aboriginal people of what is now Canada organized themselves as sovereign nations, with what was essentially gov - ernmental jurisdiction over their lands, including property rights.Those rights — of governance and property — were trampled in the stampede of European settlement, colonization and commercial interests. But they were never lost or extinguished. Read this brief historic account of the rights inherited by citizens of today’s First Nations, Learn about the erosion of property and governance rights through the dark periods of colonization and marginalization, and ultimately, their affirmation in Canada’s constitution and recognition in Canadian
  • R. V. Van Der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R

    R. V. Van Der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R

    R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 Dorothy Marie Van der Peet Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) and The Attorney General of Quebec, the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the First Nations Summit, Delgamuukw et al., Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Van der Peet File No.: 23803. 1995: November 27, 28, 29; 1996: August 21. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Constitutional law -- Aboriginal rights -- Right to sell fish on non-commercial basis -- Fish caught under native food fish licence -- Regulations - 2 - prohibiting sale or barter of fish caught under that licence -- Fish sold to non-aboriginal and charges laid -- Definition of "existing aboriginal rights" as used in s. 35 of Constitution Act, 1982 -- Whether an aboriginal right being exercised in the circumstances -- Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) -- Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, s. 61(1) -- British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/84-248, s. 27(5). The appellant, a native, was charged with selling 10 salmon caught under the 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) authority of an Indian food fish licence, contrary to s. 27(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, which prohibited the sale or barter of fish caught under such a licence. The restrictions imposed by s.
  • Aboriginal Title As a Constitutionally Protected Property Right Kent Mcneil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Kmcneil@Osgoode.Yorku.Ca

    Aboriginal Title As a Constitutionally Protected Property Right Kent Mcneil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected]

    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2000 Aboriginal Title as a Constitutionally Protected Property Right Kent McNeil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Recommended Citation McNeil, Kent. "Aboriginal Title as a Constitutionally Protected Property Right." Lippert, Owen, ed. Beyond the Nass Valley: National Implications of the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw Decision. Vancouver, BC: The rF aser Institute, 2000. p. 55-75. ISBN: 0889752060 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title as a Constitutionally Protected Property Right KENT MCNEIL Delgamuukw v. British Columbia' is undoubtedly one of the most impor­ tant decisions the Supreme Court of Canada has ever handed down. It will have a continuing, long-term impact on the Aboriginal peoples' re­ lationships with the federal and provincial governments, as well as on the constitutional division of powers in this country.2 While there are many aspects of the decision that require analysis and discussion, this paper's focus is on the definition of Aboriginal title provided by the Court. In particular, I am going to discuss the status of Aboriginal title, ~~<::~~~ a pr?Ee ~ty_ rig~~1 J2.u~ - ~1E.?. ~ ~:__ a_~!E.£~~!!!.i9 n_ally}.ro f£.~t~I£I£Eitj right. This wi1f'involve looking at the central position of property, espe- Cially real property, in the common law.